Re: snmpwalk and write-only variables
Dave Shield <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.net-snmp.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKoMtGYRzL6vFzGc8Yx7XVN4Wj6qib2+c4hkeKnANZ+Tt3jD3Q@mail.gmail.com> |
On 10 July 2012 15:37, <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope I'm missing something real basic. If you're doing an snmpwalk > and it comes up to write-only variables, 'write-only' objects were an idea within SMIv1 that was subsequently dropped for SMIv2. Modern MIB files would not define MIB objects as "write-only" - at the very least, they would probably report a standard value. > I can understand not printing > anything for those variables, but should it then skip the "peer" > variables just beyond those? No. A GetNext request would skip any inaccessible objects (which would include "write-only" objects) and return the next accessible instance. The SNMP protocol does not have any concept of the "level" or depth of an OID - it purely works in terms of a sequential ordering. > Do people carefully design MIBs so any write-only variables come last? People carefully design MIBs so that they don't contain any write-only variables! Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list [email protected] Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users